Land Management Among Hunter-Gatherers: Questioning the Ubiquity Claims

Abstract

Evidence that our industrial society, built on agricultural subsistence, is inherently ecologically destructive underlines the value in identifying which, if any, past human subsistence approaches have been ecologically benign. The traditional land management practiced by some hunter-gatherers is touted by some as a model of ecologically benign subsistence. In this paper I examine critically several broad assertions made commonly by proponents of this set of subsistence practices. These claims portray these practices as almost ubiquitous among human societies, in their impacts across land areas, and through time. Despite having been subjected to little scrutiny, these claims have contributed to the reputation, on the part of traditional land management, for ecological benignity. By analyzing them critically we can improve our understanding of traditional land management, laying a foundation for more effective examination of direct ecological impacts and long term consequences of this subsistence approach.

Agriculture: ending the world as we know it

[6/2014 - Note: I've long preferred an earlier working title I had used for this article: Agriculture: The Beginning and End of Civilization]

As hunter-gatherers, we blended gracefully into Earth's ecosystems. Then everything changed. Agriculture works by destroying habitat and tearing down ecosystems. It has not just caused our numbers to grow into the billions, setting the stage for climate change, it has spurred the sixth mass extinction in earth's history. We are literally consuming the very web of life on which all species depend for survival.

Ultimately, because civilization is killing the planet, we must consider embracing once again a way of living which worked for over two million years. We don’t have to go backwards; we need only nurture who we really are. (After reading the article, find a clarifying addendum at the end of this blog post.)

Population: the elephant in the room

The size and growth of the human population is a fundamental factor in environmental degradation. It threatens humanity and all life on Earth. But there has existed for decades a kind of taboo suppressing open discussion of the problem. The result is that few environmental organizations will touch the topic and programs aimed at reducing fertility rates are few in number and woefully underfunded. This article discusses the taboo and why it's misguided. It introduces the Global Population Speak Out, a project designed to address it.

Return of the population timebomb

It's a myth that we can solve the global ecological crisis merely by reducing per capita consumption while ignoring population. Ecological footprint data provide one way of proving that. We must return our attention to population. There is no alternative.

(Note: (1) The calculations in the article are all correct. They are based on the most precise data provided by the Global Footprint Network (GFN), not the rounded figures used in some of the summaries on their site or, in some instances, in this article. (2) This article was written using GFN's 2006 data. They have since published their 2008 data which show the situation to be considerably worse.)

Humanity is the greatest challenge

Though it is the most important challenge humanity has ever faced, the media underplay the global ecological crisis. Overpopulation is its chief proximate driver. (Agriculture is arguably the root driver.) Yet environmentalists avoid the subject more than any other ecological truth.

Can ecological economists stop the mainstreamers before it's too late?

Mainstream economists are trying to kill us. They don't think of it that way, but they should. The standard policies promoting endless economic growth of the conventional sort are destroying the ecosystem.

Find additional articles on John's now inactive blog, Growth is Madness! It's a useful resource for analyses of certain ecological questions with emphases on population and ecological economics. Includes guest pieces by such luminaries as Herman Daly and Albert Bandura. A number of the articles debunk common myths such as: (1) the notion that because all humans could fit in Texas that means we are not overpopulated, (2) the assumption that the UN's population projections can be taken as reliable predictions, and (3) the argument that the problem is not population but per capita consumption. For these topics and much more, do try Growth is Madness!